27th January 2013, 09:51 PM
Thanks Kevin! It's that fine line between minimum wage and price fixing.
I also whole-heartedly agree with Chiz as pay minima themselves are more of a symptom of the state of archaeology which cannot currently operate as a meritocracy because margins are tight.
As far as that 250 / 65 ratio goes... off the top of my head 65 to digger, the rest needs to cover tax and NI, employers tax and NI, overheads on site include portaloos, portacabins, liability insurance, cost towards providing PPE, machinery such as diggers and the digger driver, vehicles and mileage paid by company, post-excavation costs (need a component here to actually produce the report and pay for specialists if necessary), pre-excavation work such as the production of a WSI and submission to the county archaeologist, oh having an office in the first place heating it, lighting, business council tax rates... etc etc. Percentage wise not much goes to the digger but it covers the cost of there being a business in the first place to win the job and give the digger a job. Profit margins are not exactly running at £185 per digger per day!
The archaeologist in the field is the most valuable asset to the business, you earn the greatest fee to keep the company running. I don't think enough is made of that, nor do I think that it is explained... without diggers digging the rest of the company falls apart as their work is what is chargeable and covering the cost of archaeology. For the client they are the tangible asset they are charged for- it would be a bit insane to break it down into all the component parts it needs to pay for on a tender. I feel that taking the time to explain this breakdown of cost may help dissolve some of this animosity. We are an intelligent workforce an understanding of how the pricing works may help morale a bit more. The 'them and us' attitude between office and field is not helpful. I remember being asked by someone rather vitriolically why I had abandoned true archaeology and gone to the dark side in the office... well he'd failed to notice I was seven months pregnant so I guess that kind of summed it up for me. It's not treacherous to stop digging.
I can't see how it can ever be constructive to be so negative about a members organisation like the IfA as they are, by definition, only as capable as the people who put their time and energies into getting involved. Disagree? Then the only way to do something about it is to get involved yourself. Lets face it if I wasn't passionate about archaeology I'd be doing some sensible job being paid a sensible salary somewhere. I'm not a member of DF but am in the Graphic Archaeology Group (can't quite bring myself to call it GAG...)
So, trying to move forward and away from IfA bashing. If pay minima and the necessity to impose them are symptoms, what is the cure? Will chartering help this and how?
I also whole-heartedly agree with Chiz as pay minima themselves are more of a symptom of the state of archaeology which cannot currently operate as a meritocracy because margins are tight.
As far as that 250 / 65 ratio goes... off the top of my head 65 to digger, the rest needs to cover tax and NI, employers tax and NI, overheads on site include portaloos, portacabins, liability insurance, cost towards providing PPE, machinery such as diggers and the digger driver, vehicles and mileage paid by company, post-excavation costs (need a component here to actually produce the report and pay for specialists if necessary), pre-excavation work such as the production of a WSI and submission to the county archaeologist, oh having an office in the first place heating it, lighting, business council tax rates... etc etc. Percentage wise not much goes to the digger but it covers the cost of there being a business in the first place to win the job and give the digger a job. Profit margins are not exactly running at £185 per digger per day!
The archaeologist in the field is the most valuable asset to the business, you earn the greatest fee to keep the company running. I don't think enough is made of that, nor do I think that it is explained... without diggers digging the rest of the company falls apart as their work is what is chargeable and covering the cost of archaeology. For the client they are the tangible asset they are charged for- it would be a bit insane to break it down into all the component parts it needs to pay for on a tender. I feel that taking the time to explain this breakdown of cost may help dissolve some of this animosity. We are an intelligent workforce an understanding of how the pricing works may help morale a bit more. The 'them and us' attitude between office and field is not helpful. I remember being asked by someone rather vitriolically why I had abandoned true archaeology and gone to the dark side in the office... well he'd failed to notice I was seven months pregnant so I guess that kind of summed it up for me. It's not treacherous to stop digging.
I can't see how it can ever be constructive to be so negative about a members organisation like the IfA as they are, by definition, only as capable as the people who put their time and energies into getting involved. Disagree? Then the only way to do something about it is to get involved yourself. Lets face it if I wasn't passionate about archaeology I'd be doing some sensible job being paid a sensible salary somewhere. I'm not a member of DF but am in the Graphic Archaeology Group (can't quite bring myself to call it GAG...)
So, trying to move forward and away from IfA bashing. If pay minima and the necessity to impose them are symptoms, what is the cure? Will chartering help this and how?